POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

Renowned journalist, author, and media critic Barrie Zwicker has joined the growing list of intellectuals, experts, scholars, activists, journalists, pilots, and concerned citizens who have spoken out in favor of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) and our presentation National Security Alert, some of whom are quoted here.

Barrie has also taken it upon himself to speak out very strongly against those attempting to cast doubt on us and/or our findings.

A video and accompanying text of his endorsement is available on this web page.

It now has been 10 days since Barrie's confirmed effort to submit this to 911blogger.com, and his post has not been approved for publication (more on this later). He has told us he still maintains hope that "this de facto censorship, at the premiere 9/11 Truth site, against support for a major team of 9/11 researchers and their original and highly-significant research will eventually be lifted, for the sake of those who visit the site in search of facts and opinions falling squarely within the mandate of 911blogger.com".

He added that if 911blogger does not revert to serving the cause of 9/11 Truth, which he believes it started out doing, it will have to join an all-too-long list of disinformation sources to be included in the book he is writing on false flag operators, false flag organizations and false flag operations. He said this troubles him deeply.

For those who aren't aware, CIT has been under assault from the owners of 911blogger for more than two years. For the record:

CIT and, to a lesser degree PFT, seem to get excessive and unjustifiable grief from the 911 Truth Community at large. But the way a certain group conducts itself in doing that also seems seems to be very odd or curious.

To me, 911 is vast and complex. Its investigation and research requires a person to specialize in one of two areas - WTC or Pentagon - in order to be an expert at one. 1. WTC - relevant skills are architect, engineer, chemist, applied physicist, fire safety - focused on building structure forensics - several conflicting government investigations and detailed public positions - extensive video and testimonial record of event is publicly available - some physical evidence remains. This makes it easy for private investigators to focus on the pillar of the government version with produce cogent, competent proof that it was impossible. Then, they use lots of direct evidence and little deduction to take the next step and show what happened instead. 2. Pentagon - relevant skills are airplane pilot, mechanic, traffic controller, administrator, attendant, design engineer, geophysicist, investigator - focused on aerodynamic forensics - little government investigation and sparse public positions - public record controlled, incomplete with many documents withheld, inconsistent but unexplained, video very poor, witnesses poor - no physical evidence remains. They also have been able to focus on several things that prove the government story impossible. But with less direct evidence, more deduction is needed for any specific true version, and deduction is used different ways.

What's important is that the skills don't overlap. Aerodynamics is totally unnecessary to the WTC proof; building structure is unnecessary for the Pentagon proof. Even the experts on one side have no better claim than anyone else to being an expert on the other side.

SO why are Hoffman, Legge, et. al. crossing the Pentagon line iin such portentious fashion in the first place, est aside for a second why are they doing so to attack CIT and PFT? It shows either poor judgment or megalomania on their part.

ON the other hand, Craig, Aldo and Rob have the good sense to trad lightly when they cross into WTC issues. .

I was unaware of the problems CIT has with 911blogger till recently. A few days ago I watched all of your videos. Although they may lack professional polish, there is simply no good, reasonable reason for the problem with 911blogger. The information presented is excellent, and very damning to the official fairy tail. Incredibly so. Other material is too, so whats the problem with them??? I have had some contact with "Erik" who started Firefighters for 911 Truth. Though he does not focus on the Pentagon, I praised CIT and mentioned the problem and suggested he view the videos. The issue is the towers and the Pentagon are part of the same big lie. Perhaps he will take interest and post.

I was unaware of the problems CIT has with 911blogger till recently. A few days ago I watched all of your videos. Although they may lack professional polish, there is simply no good, reasonable reason for the problem with 911blogger. The information presented is excellent, and very damning to the official fairy tail. Incredibly so. Other material is too, so whats the problem with them??? I have had some contact with "Erik" who started Firefighters for 911 Truth. Though he does not focus on the Pentagon, I praised CIT and mentioned the problem and suggested he view the videos. The issue is the towers and the Pentagon are part of the same big lie. Perhaps he will take interest and post.

High praises for your work and dedication.

I think Barrie Zwicker summed up the problem

QUOTE

To me, two most important questions now, almost nine years after the events, urgently call out for investigation. First, who are those behind the vicious attempts to discredit the work of the Citizen Investigation Team? Second, what are the motives of the would-be discreditors and those behind them? I say “attempts” because careful examination of the arguments CIT’s tormentors show them to be tricky and unreliable -- as flimsy as the official story they try to defend.

One thing is to disagree with the findings but to see how this petty hate/censorship campaign has developed is alarming.

I hope others like yourself Michael72, try to make others aware of this evidence and the shoddy treatment it has received based on nothing but ego and demonstrable lies.

I was unaware of the problems CIT has with 911blogger till recently. A few days ago I watched all of your videos. Although they may lack professional polish, there is simply no good, reasonable reason for the problem with 911blogger. The information presented is excellent, and very damning to the official fairy tail. Incredibly so. Other material is too, so whats the problem with them??? I have had some contact with "Erik" who started Firefighters for 911 Truth. Though he does not focus on the Pentagon, I praised CIT and mentioned the problem and suggested he view the videos. The issue is the towers and the Pentagon are part of the same big lie. Perhaps he will take interest and post.

High praises for your work and dedication.

Thanks Michael.

I met Erik last year during the anniversary event in New York. He seems like a good guy.

I was at our local 911Truth meeting this week. I mentioned just learning of the controversy with CIT and 911Blogger. I asked one of our very capable organizers and he was loathe to delve into it, but felt from things on Blogger that there was legit issues on both sides. Seems whatever ought to be stated in a sentance or two, but he firmly did not want to talk on the subject and suggested I search the Blogger, "past" and find out myself. It was puzzling. I have not looked around on Blogger and done so yet, but I was impressed with CIT, and I want to know specifically what the issue(s) , because, at present I am aware of no good reason for this to exist. Can anyone some it up in a nutshell and be specific?

I was at our local 911Truth meeting this week. I mentioned just learning of the controversy with CIT and 911Blogger. I asked one of our very capable organizers and he was loathe to delve into it, but felt from things on Blogger that there was legit issues on both sides. Seems whatever ought to be stated in a sentance or two, but he firmly did not want to talk on the subject and suggested I search the Blogger, "past" and find out myself. It was puzzling. I have not looked around on Blogger and done so yet, but I was impressed with CIT, and I want to know specifically what the issue(s) , because, at present I am aware of no good reason for this to exist. Can anyone some it up in a nutshell and be specific?

There are no good reasons for it which is why the organizer was not able or willing to get into it.

It's nothing but good old fashioned thought control. I wish I could sum it up in a sentence for you but the open letter I posted in this thread chronicles pretty much everything and even provides links to the relevant threads on 911blogger as sources to the "past".

If you really want to know the details I suggest you go through the entire letter and click on go through the links:

Thanks Craig, I have been looking over your suggestions and it has helped. I feel I need to know how to answer or warn others because someones gona ask. My first thoughts are that the lame video clip of the "plane" that hit and exploded into the Pentagon was one of their biggest mistakes. That is a complete joke. In addition to the actual damage, wreckage-or lack theroff, comments by 757 pilots..all the stuff we know; Your information, if your witnesses are not lyers and your not, only adds support to what is pretty obvious. Light poles were down, but certainly no 757 did it. After reading some of the negatives on the Blogger, my opinion is they are "bad guys" who are controlling info. Working/controlling the oppossition to the official story. Perhaps part of or close to pressure from the Pentagon itself, who don't want another item in the scales that makes the attack looked like anyhting other than what they want. The jokes on them. Even if CIT did not have its research, evidence of fraud at the Towers and Bldg 7 screams against the official fairy tail. if explosives brought them down as is surely the case, the airplanes were only a stunt to direct blame. Maybe if the had planted a crushed up 757 at the site it would at least look more believable. What asses.

911 Blogger censors people who have expressed a position about any aspect of 911 that they don't support. It is that simple.

I was formerly on the Board of Directors of AE911Truth and had some "issues" with some of their evidence claims, though I support their mission and think they are correct on most of their statements.

Justin Keogh is the webmaster of 911 Blogger and I believe he also is part of the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

I was forced out of AE9/11truth by Justin and others who simply refused to have any dialogue about any issue which they felt undermined their message or their pillars of truth. My effort was aimed at perfecting the message, not diluting or destroying it. Yet I was cast as some sort of "spy" or infiltrator.

It should be pointed out that AE911Truth has a collection of civil engineers and architects who have signed their petition calling for a new investigation. I am one of them with a career which began in 1970 including working at the time for Emery Roth & Sons who produced the construction drawings for the Twin Towers. Most of the qualified building profession petition signers are not active within the organization and have not been consulted about the "evidence" presented by the group. Jon Cole, is an exception as he is a practicing civil engineer and an AE911T board member. Most of the 1200+ cited as petition signers are not licensed architects or engineers, but include other engineers. A minor point but a significant one. Justin Keogh is a software engineer.

I certainly don't question the notion that many are outraged at the deception of the official story and many have signed the AE911T petition calling for a new investigation. There should be millions of signatures on that petition.

But this does not excuse the censorship and lack of accountability which is present in the 911 truth movement. The pressure to discredit CIT is a prime example.

Chris Sarns, an active AE911T volunteer and self styled expert on WTC7 has been trying his darndest to get CIT "run out of town". Gage who, I believe, initially was impressed with their work was "pressured" to withdraw AE911T's official endorsement of their work. It should be noted that Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley of the Journal of 9/11 Studies are a strong proponents of the South path and crash of a wide bodied jet into the pentagon.

So what we have is: he who controls the medium (web sites in this case) controls (censors) the message and the messengers who disagree about ANYTHING. I am unable to post a comment on 911Blogger about anything, agree or disagree. My emails asking for an explanation are unanswered. Gage tells me that he has no idea why.

It's very unfortunate that the truth movement is faced with this issue of censorship and the inability to engage in open and honest debate about the "events" and what ARE the facts... not the opinions. We are all entitled to opinions, but not to our own facts. We all make mistakes and need to be able to acknowledge them and move on. I am reminded of the discussion about the diagonal cut core column which Jones cited as proof of cutter charges low down and in the building. This photo turned out to be either a fake or taken well after clean up had begun and was not evidence as Jones claimed it was. He never retracted his statements.

The truth movement's "scientific" claims cannot be taken seriously if they are not held up to close scrutiny, debated, tested and shown to be solid and irrefutable. Sadly this is not the case. The so called "peer review" is hardly one of independent outside review and more like an echo chamber of supporters. This is not impressing the scientific and engineering community.

NIST, FEMA Bazant, Zhou, Greening, Popular Mechanics and others have made mistakes and serious ones. There may even be an attempt to deceive the public as to what happened. It certainly looks as if there is an ongoing attempt to cover up what happened and keep it out of the courts and down the memory hole.

We can and should debate points and let the chips fall where they may. Censorship is making the truth movement appear much like the OCT proponents they condemn so much for the very same thing.

Thank you so much for your candid and personal behind the scene insight into what is likely the root of this issue within the "truth movement".

There is obviously some heavy-duty control of information going on here and it can not be denied that as the owner of 911blogger, and someone with a clear position of influence within AE911truth, that Justin Keogh is a central player in this travesty of truth and justice. It's no surprise to me that he has worked to silence you within that organization and of course on his website, and his lack of transparency for this heavy-handed approach is evident in a dialog that I had with him about the unjust banning of CIT at 911blogger years ago. That dialog is documented here:

But I do have on correction to make....Richard Gage never "withdrew" his statement of support for our work. That is why it still exists on our praise page as it was initially provided to us here:

QUOTE

"The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for. The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD "National Security Alert" deserves serious attention - particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day."

Note how he said nothing about the flyover. But as you suggested he was browbeaten by people like Chris Sarns and Justin Keogh into issuing a "clarification" that he did not explicitly endorses the flyover, even though he made no such statement in his initial quote anyway.

But his support for our work still stands to this day as he has personally promised me that he would call me to discuss any "issues" that people bring up to him in the future.

It's probably not wise to air "dirty laundry" in "public". I have tried to engage quietly through email and avoid names and try to keep the issues and the observation and science. I have posted my "theories" about the twin towers on several discussion fora including this one. As an architect with decades of practice and someone who has studied the twin's structure in detail I feel more qualified than many to discuss their destruction.

Yet I am dismissed and my credentials have even been questioned. My thesis may not be correct, but it does conform to what I observe and it does conform to the principles of statics and physics. This thesis is worthy of debate and discussion and even modeling or testing, but not ridicule or silence.

When I had about 1/2 hr with Gage recently to explain my thesis which is essentially "unnatural initiation" leading to natural collapse, his response was he didn't believe it intuitively. YIKES I was trying to make engineering "points' and he dismissed them because of his "intuition"? He did so, I believe because retreat from one's position is very difficult when you have been expounding it for 5 years at hundreds of venues. I can understand why he is reluctant to accept that the towers could collapse naturally since he has been claiming there are 10 signs why they didn't.

I have written to him asking him to call a conference of engineering professions to discuss the matter. Silence. When I was with AE911T up to just before their big February press conference (I had a major input on the production of the presser) we were supposed to have a gathering for only architects and engineers where some of these issues might be raised in a professional environment. The non professional volunteers objected and the AE luncheon was opened up to anyone. I was removed just before the conference and I am sure I would not have been welcome anyway. I am thrilled it was so successful.

But I am not thrilled at the censorship. I encountered inside of AE911T and now I see it in the larger movement. I met Craig and purchased his CD at the We Demand Transparency event in 9/09. Since that time I have found their work to be worthy of consideration, methodical and rigorous and have been surprised that some in the 911 Truth movement are trying to discredit CIT.

We don't have all we would like to in order to tease out the true story about 9/11. But we need to be very rigorous and scientific in how we go about this. Just because we know there were lies and deceptions, does not mean everything we were told was a lie and a deception. We need to find the lies and support the truths. And the entire truth may emerge. But it seems like this could happen if the authorities would be more cooperative. They are not and so at the very least we know something is being covered up.

We need to work together not work on our own agenda and try to protect our "franchise" within the truth movement. We should be a movement of truth not men and I fear the latter is what we are becoming.

The censorship is something that I just don't get, but it is very very real.

Some good points mentioned on debate and so on, but I think AE's 10 points trump any sense of natural collapse. 3 bldgs in one day, all at virtual freefall speed. Somehow bldg 7 is not mentioned in the Commissions report. The evidence in the dust of thermite, iron microspeheres. Some of the disagreements and censoring may be an " I don't agree with this, so its out" and innocent, but if 9/11 was a black op-false flag it is logical that certain efforts would be made well after the fact to continue to derail/ confuse information related to the event. I have no personal experience therin, but am well read on intrigues and personal contact with some who have such experience, which makes me easily one that does not trust the official version and the results of 9/11. T...The sceduling of war games that confused on the same day...proof of something, perhaps not but when added all up, it would seem to be hardly coincidence...interesting.